Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1275)	11/9/2000 10:20:03 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

The point is irrelevant. If this, if that, so what?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (1275)	11/9/2000 10:33:19 AM
From: TraderGreg	Respond to of 6710

The current EC is technically weighted in favor of small states. AK is 1/435 of the country in population(approximately) based on house representation. CA is 52/435 of the country. But, even though CA is 52 times bigger than AK, it only gets 54/3=18 times as many electoral votes. This deviation is caused because the EC is based on HOuse + Senate members and AK like CA gets 2 senators. We all accept that as fair( I think<g>) If the EC is to mirror the population %s then maybe step one is to reduce the EC to 435(which I agree would really screw the small states so I might give up step one in a compromise model) STep 2: Allow proportionate allocation of EC votes in each state. Eliminate winner take all situations. That way, Democratic candidates could campaign in TX and Republican candidates could even campaign in MA cause they would still be getting a portion of the EC votes. BTW, that would permit Texans and Massachusites? to get broader opinions. STEP 3: Shorten the length of the campaign. In other words, no one can even file for President before say Jan. 2, of the election yr. STEP 4: National primary to reduce primary campaigning costs with National debates within each party. STEP 5: Dump the 4 day fiasco we call conventions and turn it into a 1 or 2 day conclave to finalize platforms and acceptance speeches only. STEP 6: Campaign hiatus until after Labor Day. Now, primary campaigning costs go down big, convention costs go down big, and formal campaign costs go down somewhat since the campaign will be less than 2 mos long. In those 2 mos, the campaigns would be able to visit the whole friggin country. Gore and Bush wouldn't have to hit FL 15+ times cause there wouldn't be 25 electoral votes at stake anymore. They would be campaigning for slight improvements in market share. Assume the polls say, Bush would have 52% and Gore had 48% of the vote. In the current model, Gore spends big bucks to get over 50% because those extra couple of percent mean 25 elec votes. In my model, Gore might campaign but not necessarily as hard. Why? Cause at 52-48, he already has 12 elec votes and Bush has 13. Would Gore make 15 trips to FL to get 1 or 2 or even 3 more elec votes??? I think not. This model would ensure that all states would get some coverage because poll improvements would only add fractional portions of that state's EC total. TG